Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Paul Johnson wrote:
On Aug 18, 11:18 am, Bill Shatzer wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

Paul Berg wrote:
...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
provides little more than bump and scrape protection?
They seem effective in reducing serious head injuries by up to
85%.
Which is why some states and provinces, like British Columbia,
consider helmets a mandatory item for all cyclists regardless of
age.
Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those
who have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?

Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.


More like helping morons live to propogate.

Please provide a citation to a REPUTABLE study that demonstrates that
BICYCLE helmets are effective in reducing severe head injuries.

How about just head injuries. Say, concussions. Like you'd get hitting
your bare head on pavement. Nobody really knows how many concussions is
too many, but they do have a cumulative effect.


Running cyclists down with a truck is anti-cyclist.

Mandatory helmet laws promote the image that riding a bicycle is
dangerous (no so, compared to many other ordinary activities) and
discourage bicycle use. Therefore, these laws are anti-bicyclist.


How about seatbelts? How many people stopped driving when they became
mandatory? Airbags? Padded dash? Collapsable steering column?

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
fred wrote:

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Paul Berg wrote:
...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
provides little more than bump and scrape protection?

And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the
injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the helmet
thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs and no head
injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be irrelevant. By not
mentioning the type of injuries, they imply that they were head
injuries and that helmets might have made a difference.


Nope. They're just letting the public know that they are a couple of
morons.

I see that "Lobby Dosser" has uncritically accepted the bicycle helmet
propaganda designed primarily to drive the sales of foam bicycle hats.


A good friend had his life saved by one of the foam hats. As long as you
pay your own medical care for head injuries, I don't really care what You
do.

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
Kris Baker wrote:

Again, where are the REPUTABLE studies showing that BICYCLE helmets are
effective? In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists and
the reduction in overall bicycle use lead to a higher rate of motor
vehicle/bicycle collisions.

MY own head is all the study I need.

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in that MHLs
cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists

Say What?!!

Yes, a study was done where the horizontal clearance provided to both
helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists was measured.

The motorists were not available for interview, but it can be speculated
that due to helmet propaganda, helmeted bicyclists are seen as more
responsible and less likely to unpredictably weave into traffic. An
alternate hypothesis would be that helmets are seen as provided bicyclists
with some unreasonably high degree of protection, so the motorist need not
exercise the same degree of care while passing.

OK. Then just run into the drivers wearing seatbelts.
It'll protect you, too. Same logic.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists
Say What?!!
Yes, a study was done where the horizontal clearance provided to both
helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists was measured.

The motorists were not available for interview, but it can be
speculated that due to helmet propaganda, helmeted bicyclists are seen
as more responsible and less likely to unpredictably weave into
traffic. An alternate hypothesis would be that helmets are seen as
provided bicyclists with some unreasonably high degree of protection,
so the motorist need not exercise the same degree of care while
passing.


You wouldn't happen to have a Cite for this study, would you?

The study was done by Dr. Ian Walker of Bath University and recorded the
clearance provided by 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and
Bristol. The study found that motorists passed helmet wearing cyclists
an average of 8.5-cm closer than non-helmeted cyclists.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

Citation: Walker, I. (2007). Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective
data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and
apparent gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 417-425.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
Lobby Dosser wrote:

You wouldn't happen to have a Cite for this study, would you?

The study was done by Dr. Ian Walker of Bath University and recorded the
clearance provided by 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.
The study found that motorists passed helmet wearing cyclists an average
of 8.5-cm closer than non-helmeted cyclists.

And to do it accurately, you'd have to run alongside with a tape
measure. I smell Monty Python here.

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:

In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to
bicyclists
Say What?!!
Yes, a study was done where the horizontal clearance provided to
both helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists was measured.

The motorists were not available for interview, but it can be
speculated that due to helmet propaganda, helmeted bicyclists are
seen as more responsible and less likely to unpredictably weave into
traffic. An alternate hypothesis would be that helmets are seen as
provided bicyclists with some unreasonably high degree of
protection, so the motorist need not exercise the same degree of
care while passing.


You wouldn't happen to have a Cite for this study, would you?

The study was done by Dr. Ian Walker of Bath University and recorded
the clearance provided by 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and
Bristol. The study found that motorists passed helmet wearing cyclists
an average of 8.5-cm closer than non-helmeted cyclists.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

Citation: Walker, I. (2007). Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective
data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and
apparent gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 417-425.


Quite full of holes. NTM that "passing more closely" appears to be 3.33
inches closer than 4.4 FEET!

On Aug 18, 3:03 pm, "Gooserider" wrote:
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in s.com...

Paul Berg wrote:
...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy Mastne,
were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Neither
cyclist was wearing a helmet.

Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat provides
little more than bump and scrape protection?

Oh damn, here we go...

PEDAL FASTER, maybe we can get away!

"Kris Baker" wrote:


"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in
message .. .
Lobby Dosser wrote:

You wouldn't happen to have a Cite for this study, would you?

The study was done by Dr. Ian Walker of Bath University and recorded
the clearance provided by 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and
Bristol. The study found that motorists passed helmet wearing
cyclists an average of 8.5-cm closer than non-helmeted cyclists.

And to do it accurately, you'd have to run alongside with a tape
measure. I smell Monty Python here.




He had a laser thingie. But the 8.5cm closer is closer than a normal
distance of 1.3 METERS.

On Aug 18, 3:35 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Bill Shatzer wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

Paul Berg wrote:

...
The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.

Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
provides little more than bump and scrape protection?

They seem effective in reducing serious head injuries by up to 85%.

http://tinyurl.com/yqk6xl\

Who ya gonna trust? The New England Journal of Medicine or Frankie K. 'n
Johnny Sunset?!? LOL

You get hit by a Lincoln Navigator doing 35 mph, you're in a world of
****, bike helmet or no bike helmet. Hell, at that speed, you're in a
world of **** even with a motorcycle helmet.

For the more typical low speed accidents and collisions, bike helmets
are useful though no panacea.

Moderate statements have no place around here. HTH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Might as well add phony political **** about Bush needs oil to shut up
young Canadians who can vote here even if they illegally immigrate and
they are lesbian-hating child molesters who have the only Super 8
footage of California Jam in existance and are persecuted by DeSerT
BoB or aus.internet.kOOks--huzzah!

Have we all been served?